3 total
Accused acquitted of assault and harassment due to reliability concerns but convicted of mischief.
The accused faced charges of attempting to choke, assault, mischief, and criminal harassment involving a former partner and children.
The court acquitted the accused on the assault, choking, and harassment charges due to reliability issues, inconsistencies in the evidence, and concerns about witness contamination.
The accused was found guilty of mischief under $5,000 for damaging a bedroom door, which was supported by independent photographic evidence.
The court dismissed the application to bar a choking prosecution, finding double jeopardy inapplicable.
The Applicant sought an order barring the Crown from prosecuting him for an allegation of choking, arguing that the charge formed part of a prior resolution and that prosecution would amount to double jeopardy under sections 725(1) and 725(2) of the Criminal Code.
The Crown argued that the choking allegation was not part of the previous proceedings and could be prosecuted.
The court found that the choking allegation was not previously adjudicated or considered, and therefore, the Crown was not barred from proceeding.
The application was dismissed.
The Crown's application to admit similar fact evidence of a prior sexual assault conviction was dismissed because its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.
The Crown applied to admit similar fact evidence against the accused, Raoul Saucier, in a sexual assault trial.
The Crown argued the evidence of a prior sexual assault conviction against K.D. was relevant to consent and the exploitation of vulnerable victims, highlighting similarities in the accused's conduct.
The court, applying the Handy test, found the asserted similarities between the prior conviction and the current allegations to be generic and lacking sufficient cogency to establish an objective improbability of coincidence.
Despite the judge-alone trial, the court found a significant risk of moral prejudice, concluding that the prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value.
The application was dismissed, rendering the similar fact evidence inadmissible.
